register for free
View our sister sites
Our sister sites
Our sister sites
Our sister sites
Lionhound
Dogsey Veteran
Lionhound is offline  
Location: Elsewhere
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 7,227
Female 
 
02-04-2009, 07:52 PM
Originally Posted by ajshep1984 View Post
True, a wider range of possible problems but also less chance of doubling up on any 'problem' genes, hence less actual problems.
Would this still be the case if the condition was genetically dominant?
Reply With Quote
mse2ponder
Dogsey Veteran
mse2ponder is offline  
Location: Yorkshire, UK
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,890
Female 
 
02-04-2009, 09:00 PM
Originally Posted by Jackbox View Post
Not sure who says Xbreeds are healthier than Pedigrees?

The solution is buying from health tested parents and as many Xbreeds are purposely bred these days.. it stands to reason they will be or could be doubling up on genetic problems.

I have had mongrels, and purebreds all my life, cant say one was healthier than the other, individual dogs all having individual life spans and illness.

With respect to KCJack, it would be interesting to know where her dogs came from, whether they came from health tested stock, from reputable breeders.

As the where they come from will have more to do with their health than what they are!!!
I think most people would say crossbreeds are more likely to be more healthy than pedigrees. These thoughts are backed up by what we know aout genetics. I don't think anyone would say all crossbreeds are healthier than all pedigrees - that's just daft. Inbreeding does cause problems. This is well documented, and is the reason we don't reproduce with our parents/close relatives, and the reason the several species have developed mechanisms to prevent against inbreeding for their survival.


"The domestic dog, Canis familiaris, has
more naturally arising inherited diseases
than any other species, with the exception
of man."


Taken from:

http://bfgp.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/4/2/112

I'm afraid, the solution isn't as easy as buying from health tested parents. It can help, certainly, but there simply arent enough tests for all the inherited diseased pedigree dogs can suffer from (over 400).

Originally Posted by ClaireandDaisy View Post
Isn`t this an Old Wives Tale? Do you have any studies for it? Maybe insurance companies keep these sort of figures?
The problem with this sort of research, is that as far as I know, no-one has done any comprehensively, as funding is a problem. The Kennel Club should be doing it, but I don't think what they'd find would be too popular. There is a lot of research done on dogs, but this is because they're a good model on which to study human genetic disease, partly because they suffer from a lot of diseases, and are inbred, which makes studying the genetics behind the disease easier.

http://171.66.122.45/content/10/9/1271.full

So, the difference between pedigrees and most crossbreeds is the extent of inbreeding, and the reason inbreeding has negative effects is due to increased likelihood that a dog will inherit two of the same recessive genes. These may be disease genes, or genes for another trait (i.e. traits characteristic of a breed, such as coat colour or conformation). This is well documented. Outbreeding (introducing unrelated genetic material), by contrast means that the parents are less likely to share genes and therefore less likely to contribute two of the same recessive alleles of a gene. The reason breeds are associated with health problems is because along through selection for breed charcteristics, there is an decrease of genetic diversity within that breed, which may well inadvertently lead to accumulation of disease genes (See the high incidence of genetic disease in royal families). Of course, as i said above, it is rarely as simple as this, but it is undoubtedly true that preserving genetic diversity within a species is extremely important for it's overall health. Animal species which have succumb to extinction often have had population bottlenecks, that is, a severe reduction in genetic diversity (now extinct species of cheetah). Some species are currently affected by population bottlenecks and are suffering problems as a result of lack of diversity. Here are a couple of examples:

"The Tasmanian devil (Sarcophilus harrisii) has suffered significant population decline in recent years
due to Devil Facial Tumour Disease (DFTD), an infectious cancer which is transmitted between
individuals through biting. The low genetic diversity in Tasmanian devils has increased their
susceptibility to this disease and animals usually die within
months of clinical expression. Average sightings have declined
by 53% over the past 10 years and the current prognosis is
extinction of the species within 25-30 years."


Taken from:

http://www.cbsg.org/cbsg/workshoprep..._phva_2008.pdf

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...4d71b5ec6fa9e5

"Genetic basis for species vulnerability in the cheetah":

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...;227/4693/1428

So the fact that we know this, and the fact that research institutes are willing to spend £millions on studying the genetics and diseases of pedigree dogs, as opposed to crossbreeds, makes me feel that it's significant. Also, The Kennel Club has only closed genepools in relatively recent times, and we're already seeing lots of conditions cropping up in pedigrees - I believe the gap between the health of pedigrees and mongrels will continue to increase, ie. we might not be seeing the worst of it now.

Originally Posted by ClaireandDaisy View Post
But how do you know?
I'd love some reliable statistics too, but for now, I'm going on what we know about genetics, and the research that's already been done. Also, the very fact that individual breeds are associated with health issues (dalmatians with deafness, GSDs and HD), is an indication that the very rigid way dogs are registered is not doing them any favours... and before someone says it, I know not all dalmatians are deaf, and not all GSDs have HD, and not all pedigrees are unhealthy.. I'm simply giving some reasons how it can be deduced that pedigrees are likely to be less healthy than crossbreeds.

http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandev...8-2008-12-22-2

I wonder how these stats can be made available, and why they're not currently? Could vets be holding back this kind of info? Would the KC have anything to do with it? Why aren't they publising this sort of information? I can but speculate! Aside from that, the kennel I used to work at, the dogs on permanent meds were more likely to be prdigrees, but as people have said, this sort of information is not conclusive in any way, and the only surveys on this I've seen, have been really small, and badly analysed. If anyone has links to any better ones, I'd love to see them.

It may not look to too bad at the moment, but I am worried about the future of pedigree dogs, and how long they can go on as they are currently. I love my pedigree dogs, but I think we could be doing a lot more to ensure breeds have a bright future.
Reply With Quote
Pidge
Dogsey Veteran
Pidge is offline  
Location: Wiltshire, UK
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 5,374
Female 
 
02-04-2009, 09:42 PM
Originally Posted by Jackbox View Post
Not sure who says Xbreeds are healthier than Pedigrees?

The solution is buying from health tested parents and as many Xbreeds are purposely bred these days.. it stands to reason they will be or could be doubling up on genetic problems.

I have had mongrels, and purebreds all my life, cant say one was healthier than the other, individual dogs all having individual life spans and illness.




With respect to KCJack, it would be interesting to know where her dogs came from, whether they came from health tested stock, from reputable breeders.

As the where they come from will have more to do with their health than what they are!!!
She said in the thread that they were both from very well respected breeders and had all health checks done on them. Two in one year is really bad luck though in that case.
Reply With Quote
Pidge
Dogsey Veteran
Pidge is offline  
Location: Wiltshire, UK
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 5,374
Female 
 
02-04-2009, 09:44 PM
Originally Posted by mse2ponder View Post
I think most people would say crossbreeds are more likely to be more healthy than pedigrees. These thoughts are backed up by what we know aout genetics. I don't think anyone would say all crossbreeds are healthier than all pedigrees - that's just daft. Inbreeding does cause problems. This is well documented, and is the reason we don't reproduce with our parents/close relatives, and the reason the several species have developed mechanisms to prevent against inbreeding for their survival.


"The domestic dog, Canis familiaris, has
more naturally arising inherited diseases
than any other species, with the exception
of man."


Taken from:

http://bfgp.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/4/2/112

I'm afraid, the solution isn't as easy as buying from health tested parents. It can help, certainly, but there simply arent enough tests for all the inherited diseased pedigree dogs can suffer from (over 400).



The problem with this sort of research, is that as far as I know, no-one has done any comprehensively, as funding is a problem. The Kennel Club should be doing it, but I don't think what they'd find would be too popular. There is a lot of research done on dogs, but this is because they're a good model on which to study human genetic disease, partly because they suffer from a lot of diseases, and are inbred, which makes studying the genetics behind the disease easier.

http://171.66.122.45/content/10/9/1271.full

So, the difference between pedigrees and most crossbreeds is the extent of inbreeding, and the reason inbreeding has negative effects is due to increased likelihood that a dog will inherit two of the same recessive genes. These may be disease genes, or genes for another trait (i.e. traits characteristic of a breed, such as coat colour or conformation). This is well documented. Outbreeding (introducing unrelated genetic material), by contrast means that the parents are less likely to share genes and therefore less likely to contribute two of the same recessive alleles of a gene. The reason breeds are associated with health problems is because along through selection for breed charcteristics, there is an decrease of genetic diversity within that breed, which may well inadvertently lead to accumulation of disease genes (See the high incidence of genetic disease in royal families). Of course, as i said above, it is rarely as simple as this, but it is undoubtedly true that preserving genetic diversity within a species is extremely important for it's overall health. Animal species which have succumb to extinction often have had population bottlenecks, that is, a severe reduction in genetic diversity (now extinct species of cheetah). Some species are currently affected by population bottlenecks and are suffering problems as a result of lack of diversity. Here are a couple of examples:

"The Tasmanian devil (Sarcophilus harrisii) has suffered significant population decline in recent years
due to Devil Facial Tumour Disease (DFTD), an infectious cancer which is transmitted between
individuals through biting. The low genetic diversity in Tasmanian devils has increased their
susceptibility to this disease and animals usually die within
months of clinical expression. Average sightings have declined
by 53% over the past 10 years and the current prognosis is
extinction of the species within 25-30 years."


Taken from:

http://www.cbsg.org/cbsg/workshoprep..._phva_2008.pdf

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...4d71b5ec6fa9e5

"Genetic basis for species vulnerability in the cheetah":

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...;227/4693/1428

So the fact that we know this, and the fact that research institutes are willing to spend £millions on studying the genetics and diseases of pedigree dogs, as opposed to crossbreeds, makes me feel that it's significant. Also, The Kennel Club has only closed genepools in relatively recent times, and we're already seeing lots of conditions cropping up in pedigrees - I believe the gap between the health of pedigrees and mongrels will continue to increase, ie. we might not be seeing the worst of it now.



I'd love some reliable statistics too, but for now, I'm going on what we know about genetics, and the research that's already been done. Also, the very fact that individual breeds are associated with health issues (dalmatians with deafness, GSDs and HD), is an indication that the very rigid way dogs are registered is not doing them any favours... and before someone says it, I know not all dalmatians are deaf, and not all GSDs have HD, and not all pedigrees are unhealthy.. I'm simply giving some reasons how it can be deduced that pedigrees are likely to be less healthy than crossbreeds.

http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandev...8-2008-12-22-2

I wonder how these stats can be made available, and why they're not currently? Could vets be holding back this kind of info? Would the KC have anything to do with it? Why aren't they publising this sort of information? I can but speculate! Aside from that, the kennel I used to work at, the dogs on permanent meds were more likely to be prdigrees, but as people have said, this sort of information is not conclusive in any way, and the only surveys on this I've seen, have been really small, and badly analysed. If anyone has links to any better ones, I'd love to see them.

It may not look to too bad at the moment, but I am worried about the future of pedigree dogs, and how long they can go on as they are currently. I love my pedigree dogs, but I think we could be doing a lot more to ensure breeds have a bright future.
The trouble is, none of this is accurate unless everyone documents it and I can't see that happening. I am also with you on the concern for pedigree dogs front.
Reply With Quote
ajshep1984
Dogsey Junior
ajshep1984 is offline  
Location: town. city
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 128
Female 
 
02-04-2009, 10:08 PM
Originally Posted by Lionhound View Post
Would this still be the case if the condition was genetically dominant?
Give me an example...
Reply With Quote
mse2ponder
Dogsey Veteran
mse2ponder is offline  
Location: Yorkshire, UK
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,890
Female 
 
02-04-2009, 10:08 PM
Originally Posted by Jackbox View Post
Can be as as bad as it can be good!!


You're right, higher genetic diversity means a larger variety of alleles (thats how it's defined), and yes, some of these may be disease causing variants, but you're confusing variety with frequency, i.e. more diseases doesn't mean more diseased individuals. Besides if these diseases are caused by recessive alleles you'd need to have two to have the disease, which means it would have to arise by mutation twice independantly, and mutation is very rare anyway. These sort of effects on disease frequency are so tiny in comparison to the effects of REDUCING genetic diversity (i.e. exactly what pedigree dog breeding does) that its laughable to try and justify inbreeding in this way.



Exactly, I dont think you can generalise one over the over... a poorly bred dog is just that.

But if that was the case, all dogs from BYBs and puppy farms would be unhealthy and all dogs from reputable breeders would be healthy. This is not the case.
Reply With Quote
Lucky Star
Dogsey Veteran
Lucky Star is offline  
Location: Usually in a muddy field somewhere
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 20,145
Female 
 
02-04-2009, 10:15 PM
Originally Posted by Pidge View Post
Inspired by KCJack losing 2 peds in 1 year I've been thinking.

Why are crossbreeds more likely to live longer and healthier lives?

Also, if that is the case then why are there so many crossbred ''breeds'' (NI etc) with known health problems? they're cross bred aren't they?

Also, aren't all dogs cross bred at some point? I heard there is BC in ESS' long time ago.

I have lots of questions and thoughts in my head. I must go and clear them with a nice walk and a pint in the pub I think. Back later to see if you've all helped me. ;o)
Hi

I haven't read the responses but wanted to try to address the bit above in bold about NIs (and Utes, etc.) - I think there are problems because of in-breeding. So any benefits of crossing are destroyed because dogs are put back to close relatives.
Reply With Quote
JoedeeUK
Dogsey Veteran
JoedeeUK is offline  
Location: God's Own County
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 7,584
Female 
 
02-04-2009, 10:23 PM
Originally Posted by ajshep1984 View Post
Crossbreeds are healthier than pedigrees.

Obviously a generalised statement and of course there are always exceptions to the rule but fact is; as an overall population crossbreeds are healthier than pedigrees.
Is this based on scientific facts ?

It is no good using the insurance companies figures as they are based only on dogs that are insured.

I know one of my vets(sadly no longer with us)who was a character in Alf Wight's All Creatures Great & Small books, always said that he would love to meet whoever it was who started the X dogs are better than pedigree dogs. He had in his rather long career seen far more Xs & poorly bred pedigrees with poor temperaments & health problems that he ever did well bred pedigree dogs. He was in practice from the 1930s onwards.

The key words of course are well bred the vast majority of non designer mongrels are te result of matins between the local top stray dog & an inseason bitch, the top dog wins is place by being aggressive towards other males. Poorly bred pedigree dogs are te result of people breeding solely for money. None of these dogs have had any pre breeding health tests done & the vast majority are not registered anywhere.

I know from being involved with GSD rescue, that the vast majority(like 95%+)have no paperwork & are very poor examples with all sorts of health & character issues.

I've had mongrels who lived long lives despite having a multitude of healt & other issues.
Reply With Quote
ajshep1984
Dogsey Junior
ajshep1984 is offline  
Location: town. city
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 128
Female 
 
02-04-2009, 10:25 PM
Originally Posted by JoedeeUK View Post
Is this based on scientific facts ?
It's based on applying genetic fact to dog breeding.
Reply With Quote
Ben Mcfuzzylugs
Dogsey Veteran
Ben Mcfuzzylugs is offline  
Location: UK
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 7,723
Female 
 
02-04-2009, 10:38 PM
the fact that my cross is cheeper to insure means that the population of crossbreeds that are insured on average each have less/lower priced payouts than the population of pedigree dogs insured
dosent matter if ten times as many pedigrees are insured, the prices are based on the estimated likely claim

if the unhealthy genes were domonant then the parents would have the conditionand pups pedigree or mutt would have the same chance of getting the illness, although a good pedigree breeder shouldnt be breeding from a ill dog
Reply With Quote
Reply
Page 3 of 7 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 > Last »


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools


© Copyright 2016, Dogsey   Contact Us - Dogsey - Top Contact us | Archive | Privacy | Terms of use | Top